LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sarthak Nayar   11 September 2017

Can circumstantial evidence be the sole basis of conviction

Can some one please enlighten me with support of cases. Preferably against it being the sole basis of conviction.



Learning

 3 Replies

Raveena Kataria (Advocate )     12 September 2017

In State of UP v Ravindra Prakash Mittal, it was laid down that in the absence of direct evidence, a person can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the following conditions are met with:

●The circumstances are conclusive.

●The conclusion drawn from such circumstances is fully established.

●Facts established should be consistent with the accused's guilt.

In Laxman Naik v State of Orissa, the conviction of the accused, who was guilty for the rape and murder of a 7 year old girl, was on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Hope this helps!

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (advocate)     12 September 2017

I completely agree with Raveena Kataria.citations given by her particularly State of U.P vs Ravindra prakash Mittal,is absolutely fit case on circumstantial evidence.

kunal “#unconventional #Aquari   13 September 2017

yes it can be. In Bodhraj vs J&K it was held that circumstantial evidence must be tightly estd with guilt of accused

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register